TMI Blog2023 (1) TMI 844X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . Reopening of the case by the assessee in garb of Section 22 of Act of 1948 cannot be permitted as there is no error apparent on the record. Language employed in Section 22 is clear and authorises the officers of authority, Tribunal or High Court to rectify the mistake on its own motion or on application of the dealer within the period prescribed therein - In Thungabhadra Industries Ltd. vs. The Government of Andhra Pradesh [ 1963 (10) TMI 25 - SUPREME COURT ], the Apex Court held that a review is by no means an appeal in disguise whereby an erroneous decision is reheard and corrected, but lies only for patent error. Similarly, in Satyanarayan Laxminarayan Hegde and Ors. vs. Millikarjun Bhavanappa Tirumale [ 1959 (9) TMI 52 - SUPREME COURT] , the Apex Court held that an error apparent on the face of the record for acquiring jurisdiction to affect rectification must be such an error which may strike one on a mere looking at the record and would not require any long-drawn process of reasoning. The rectification under Section 22 of the Act of 1948 was maintainable. The language used in Section 22 is plain and simple and there is no ambiguity so as to give a different mea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rst appeal was preferred, which was dismissed. Against the dismissal of the first appeals, second appeal was preferred before the Tribunal which was also dismissed on 31.8.2004. 4. The assessee approached this Court through Trade Tax Revision Nos.2245 of 2004, 2246 of 2004, 2247 of 2004, 2248 of 2004 and 2257 of 2004. All the five revisions were decided by common judgment order dated 09.11.2004 and the revisions were dismissed. 5. The assessee had challenged the validity of Section 2(ee)(ii) of Act of 1948 through Writ Petition No.820 of 1999. The said petition was dismissed on 03.04.2001 against which a Special Leave Petition was preferred before the Hon'ble Apex Court. During pendency of the special leave petition, in another matter of Jhunjhunwala others vs. State of U.P. Others 2007(41) STJ 26 , the Apex Court on 22.9.2006 pronounced the judgment dealing Section 2(ee)(ii) of the Act of 1948. Subsequently, the revisionist withdrew his appeal which was dismissed as withdrawn on 19.4.2007. 6. On 25.6.2009 the assessee moved a rectification application under Section 22 of Act of 1948 before the Tribunal relying upon the decision of Jhunjhunwala others (supra) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... olding that the Bench was not justified in refusing to entertain the review petition on supertechnical considerations which were ill-founded. (See- State of Kerala v. P.K. Syed Akbar Sahib (1988) 1 SCC 599 : AIR 1988 SC 702). So, it appears that even for the purpose of O. 47 R. 1 C.P.C. which is more restrictive, a subsequent binding authority taking a different view of law is a good ground for review, on the ground that the order sought to be reviewed passed on antecedent decision, which stands overruled, constitutes an error apparent on the face of the record. So far as this case is concerned, it is unnecessary for us to base our decision on the provisions of O. 47 R. 1 C.P.C. which is more restrictive. The Original Petition is allowed. Ext. P.6 is quashed. The Appellate Tribunal is directed to restore Ext. P.5, the petition filed by the petitioner dated 17-6-1982 (M.P. No. 9 (Coch)/1982), and dispose of the same in accordance with law and in the light of the observations, contained herein above. 9. Sri A.C.Tripathi, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State submitted that Section 22 of the Act of 1948 envisages a situation that where any mistake has occurred in an or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Court held that a review is by no means an appeal in disguise whereby an erroneous decision is reheard and corrected, but lies only for patent error. 16. Similarly, in Satyanarayan Laxminarayan Hegde and Ors. vs. Millikarjun Bhavanappa Tirumale AIR 1960 SC 137 , the Apex Court held that an error apparent on the face of the record for acquiring jurisdiction to affect rectification must be such an error which may strike one on a mere looking at the record and would not require any long-drawn process of reasoning. 17. In Deva Metal Powders Pvt. Ltd. (supra) the Apex Court while considering the provisions of Section 22 of the Act of 1948 held that a decision on a debatable point of law or a disputed question of fact is not a mistake apparent from the record. Relevant paras 10 and 11 of the judgment are extracted hereas under : 10. A bare look at Section 22 of the Act makes it clear that a mistake apparent from the record is rectifiable. In order to attract the application of Section 22, the mistake must exist and the same must be apparent from the record. The power to rectify the mistake, however, does not cover cases where a revision or review of the order is intended. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is merely a mistake in the order sought to be rectified. The mistake to be rectified must be one apparent from the record. A decision on a debatable point of law or a disputed question of fact is not a mistake apparent from the record. The plain meaning of the word apparent is that it must be something which appears to be so ex facie and it is incapable of argument or debate. It, therefore, follows that a decision on a debatable point of law or fact or failure to apply the law to a set of facts which remains to be investigated cannot be corrected by way of rectifications. 18. Thus, the argument of assessee counsel cannot be accepted to the extent that post decision in Jhunjhunwala others (supra) , rectification under Section 22 of the Act of 1948 was maintainable. The language used in Section 22 is plain and simple and there is no ambiguity so as to give a different meaning, which only provides that in case of error apparent on the record an order for rectification of such mistake can be passed. 19. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court finds that no interference is required in the order of the Tribunal dated 23.09.2009. 20. All the revisio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
